Green complexes on links courses

[David Davis]

A question I wanted to throw out to those of you in the know about links courses.

What are the characteristics of the best green complexes on great links courses, do you have any favorites as examples, perhaps any photos to demonstrate your opinions? Who designed them/shaped them?

[Sean_A]

Usually, I think of the best greens as those which use the surrounding land well to create interesting recoveries.  Often times that means many will think of the best greens as those on plateaux.  Its a real treat to see low lying greens which are a continuation of an interesting part of the fairway.  This also means that a green can effectively be much larger than the short grass because the putter can be an effective tool.  I always cite Burnham's 7th and 11th as great examples of this type.  The 7th is classic minimalist architecture.


I recently played Rye and it has a few greens like this.  A bit of a different take on the idea is the 16th with the green running away from the fairway, just continuing the movement.  I would probably rather see the green extended in this manner - instead the flow is cut off by mounding - still its an interesting example.


Another good example is Deal's first.


A great example of an unusual take on the idea is Pennard's 7th.  The green is on a plateau, but once on top it plays much like (albeit in  a crazy fashion) the examples above.


Ciao    

[Ally Mcintosh]

I agree with Sean's take.

It's so much easier to create these kind of "extension of fairway" greens on links courses because usually you're not dealing with 18" of sub-grade building for USGA recommendation style greens... and often you have to worry less about shedding water off in as many directions as possible...

I'm not so convinced that in older courses it was always an example of good minimalist design although in the examples Sean gives, I'm sure it was. Oft-times it could well have been an example of virtually no design at all.

That said the best links greens should be a mixture of all sorts... Plateaux, heavy undulating, punchbowls / dells, etc.. etc... As long as they all work with the land. It's really frustrating for me to see greens forced on links land with extra shaping around the sides that isn't the best fit...

[Sean_A]

I definitely agree with Ally in that as a set of greens, what I want is variety more than anything.  But I don't mind some obviously contrived greens if they add variety.  I really like the pop up green like Littlestone's 18th.  Its totally at odds with the land, but cool anyway.  In fact, I wouldn't mind if the green was made even more obviously constructed on flat land.


Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

I've never been to Littlestone but I like the look of that photo of the 18th... I don't mind so much pop-up stuff created on flatter land like this (as long as it looks good), but what I'm less keen on is when on more dune defined land, fussy shapes are built in to surrounds when greens should naturally tie-off existing contours.

[Craig Disher]

Almost all the greens at Littlestone are extensions of the fairway or fit naturally onto the low dunes or shingle ridges that cross the course. The exception is 18 which was designed by Alister MacKenzie in 1924. A contemporary report written soon after it was built referred to it as "plasticine." But given what it replaced - a flat green on flat ground giving a very boring finish - it was viewed as an improvement. Here's a view from the back. The club altered the green later by raising the back, probably following complaints about the difficulty of keeping an approach on the putting surface. A bunker on the front left corner was also removed.

[BCrosby]

It's so much easier to create these kind of "extension of fairway" greens on links courses because usually you're not dealing with 18" of sub-grade building for USGA recommendation style greens... and often you have to worry less about shedding water off in as many directions as possible...

I'm not so convinced that in older courses it was always an example of good minimalist design although in the examples Sean gives, I'm sure it was. Oft-times it could well have been an example of virtually no design at all.

That said the best links greens should be a mixture of all sorts... Plateaux, heavy undulating, punchbowls / dells, etc.. etc... As long as they all work with the land. It's really frustrating for me to see greens forced on links land with extra shaping around the sides that isn't the best fit...

Ally -

Most edifying for me about these photo tours of UK courses (many of them new to me)  is the extent to which the courses rely on contour for architectural interest. Here in the US contour rarely plays such a central role. So sometimes my first reaction to these photo tours is that "there is no design at all" - as in where are the yawning sand bunkers, gurgling creeks, lakes, overhanging oaks and elevation changes? At first blush, the courses can appears to an American eye quite bland.

I understand and agree that the good ones aren't. I also understand the work that contour alone can do. But it is usually less than obvious in a photo and takes several plays to fully appreciate in person.

Specifically, what strikes me in these photo tours is how fundamentally different courses can look and play depending on the emphasis given to contour. If a course in the US looked like, say. New Zealand or Littlestone, it would likely be criticized as "not being designed at all" or one that couldn't afford to build proper sand bunkers, etc.  

My point being that these UK photo tours highlight for me the dramatic differences in how contour is used in the US and UK. It's two different architectural worlds created by the different weight given to contouring.

Which makes the success of Doak and C&C in the US all the more impressive. They were able to walk a fine line between the usual American preferences for big, dramatic features while slipping into the mix much more use of non-flashy contouring.
  
On a related note, rereading MacK's Spirit of SA recently I was struck by the emphasis he put on contour as an architectural tool. It's a theme that runs through paragraph after paragraph. The irony is that so many of MacK's courses in the US are famous for their big dramatic white sand bunkers.


Bob      

    

      

    

[Peter Pallotta]

Bob - very nice post, summing up the differences just right it seems to me. I was reminded of how someone like Pete Dye has made a career of transmuting what he saw/learned in GB&I for the American marketplace -- and of how that transmutation seems always in the direction of more not less, of bolder over subtle, of the obvious/immediate over the discreet. It's as if we in the modern/North American world need to feel that our money is being well spent i.e. if we're going to pay for the architecture we damn well better be able to see it right off the bat. Tom D and C&C have always seemed to me to be the next generation of that process, i.e. PD set the mark way over at one end, and they were able to bring it back closer to the centre (for lack of a better word).

Peter

[BCrosby]

Peter -

I hadn't thought about PD's borrowings in that way, but I think you are right. PD took from UK courses ideas for bold, eye-popping features.

Doak and C&C took ideas from UK courses for more subtle, low key features; read contouring. My sense is that the latter type of borrowings took more artistic (and career track) courage.

Bob

[Tim Gerrish]

This is a great post/thread...  Love the pics...  This is why I peruse GCA! 

Here in New England, I see it as more of a functional decision.  There just isn't the land nor the budget to build such flush (but wicked awesome) green complexes.  C&C did it at old sandwich because it is a sandy, well drained site.  Most of the sites I've been on are rock and poorly drained and if we set a green flush with the surrounds it would often end in disaster.   Though I played a green Mark Mungeam designed and built at Old Scottish Meadows, that recently closed, in central Massachusetts that had all of these qualities.  It very much looked "not designed" though it it look most likely more time to build that the other push up, raised greens. 

I will add that contour plays a huge role in design over here, it just isn't an obvious or the leading design element as the photos highlight from the UK.   

[Marty Bonnar]

I don't think anyone's mentioned the glorious green to tee transitions on most Links courses. Sometimes they're almost imperceptible. Next time you look at photos of TOC greens, take a glance to the background. That wee flat bit of grass merging in just to the side of the green? That's the next tee!!!
Wouldn't be the first time I've putted from 'the next tee'!!!
Many of them are verging on the unsafe though and couldn't really be built where they are nowadays. The joys of H&FS...

FBD.

[David Davis]

Thanks for your contributions Sean and Alley. I believe the ones I appreciate the most are the ones that do look completely natural like someone just walked up and placed a flag there. I prefer when they offer varied options of approaching and are undulated to match the surrounding landscape for the most part. I'm still curious of what others think and what examples people like from their own or other courses they have visited that for them portrays their ideal links green complexes.

[David Davis]

One good example from my home course:

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Traditionally punch bowl greens were popular on links courses because they collected the dew on otherwise very dry courses. Many such greens were taken out when automatic watering of the greens was introduced.

Funnily enough Royal St David's and Aberdovey are often criticised for their not making the maximum use of their dunes. The flat holes at Wallasey, too, are less loved by many o GCA, yet these holes are good examples of their kind with the greens just being extensions of the fairway.

[Mark Pearce]

David,

That looks like a brilliant green complex, all the more so for that little knob short right, which I can imagine can really influence shots with a pin tucked away on the right.

[Kalen Braley]

8th hole at Wine Valley.

So many different ways to get the ball to the hole with kickboards, slopes, etc...and getting on the wrong part of the green can mean an almost guranteed 3 putt.